Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5.5
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B and GPT-5.5 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5.5 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5.5: Overview
Gemma 4 26B A4B is the Mixture-of-Experts variant in Google's Gemma 4 family, with 25.2B total parameters but only 3.8B active per token. Built from the same Gemini 3 research as the 31B dense sibling and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license, it supports a 256K token context window with text and image input and configurable thinking mode. The "A4B" in the name refers to its approximately 4B active parameters. The MoE design makes it significantly faster at inference than the dense 31B, running nearly as fast as a 4B-parameter model while delivering roughly 97% of the dense model's quality.
For vision tasks, the 26B A4B shares the same multimodal capabilities as the 31B image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and structured bounding box output for UI element detection. The tradeoff versus the 31B dense model is a small quality reduction in exchange for much faster inference and lower hardware requirements, fitting in 18GB of VRAM at 4-bit quantization. It ranked #6 among open models on the Arena AI text leaderboard at launch.
GPT-5.5 is a multimodal large language model released by OpenAI on April 23, 2026, engineered for autonomous, multi-step knowledge work and agentic workflows. It accepts text, images, and code as input, featuring enhanced spatial reasoning and visual grounding to support its computer use capabilities for operating software and navigating UI elements. Built to execute complex workflows end-to-end, the model interprets loosely defined tasks, selects appropriate tools, and performs self-verification with minimal user intervention. It is available in a standard version, a Thinking mode for extended reasoning budgets, and a Pro variant that uses parallel test-time compute for maximum precision on complex tasks.
Co-optimized with NVIDIA for GB200 NVL72 infrastructure, GPT-5.5 delivers per-token latency comparable to its predecessor GPT-5.4 while maintaining a 1-million-token context window. Despite increased capability, the model achieves greater token efficiency in coding and data analysis workflows, often completing tasks with fewer total tokens than previous versions. OpenAI reports a 60% reduction in hallucination rate compared to GPT-5.4, improving reliability for accuracy-sensitive applications. API access is available via the Responses and Chat Completions endpoints at $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens, double the unit price of GPT-5.4.
Gemma 4 26B A4B vs GPT-5.5 Comparison Table
| Property | Gemma 4 26B A4B | GPT-5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 256K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.060 | $5.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.330 | $30.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 77.61% |
| Avg Response Time | 30.23s | 30.12s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | 1.4K |
| Median output tokens | 214 | 138 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | $0.011 |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 86.7%(13/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 30%(3/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 92.9%(13/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 78.9%(15/19) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology